pHoenix score: development and validation of a novel approach to decrease the number of inconclusive GERD diagnoses.
Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring
GERD
Gastroesophageal reflux
PH monitoring
Reflux
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Aug 2024
27 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
18
04
2024
accepted:
15
07
2024
medline:
28
8
2024
pubmed:
28
8
2024
entrez:
27
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The Johnson-DeMeester composite score (DMS) is the historical gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Lyon Consensus outlines criteria for diagnosing GERD by pH monitoring, defining normal acid exposure time (AET) as < 4% and pathological as > 6%, presenting diagnostic uncertainty from 4 to 6%. We aimed to (i) calculate the proportion of borderline studies defined by total AET alone that are reclassified as normal or pathological by the DMS, (ii) determine the importance of supine AET for reclassification, and (iii) propose a new classification system using a composite score that considers positional changes. This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed data from patients with an overall total AET from 2 to 6% on 48-h pH monitoring (Bravo pH capsule). Preselected predictors (supine and upright AET) were included in a model to create a composite score (i.e., pHoenix score) using the regression coefficients. The model was internally validated, and discriminative ability was tested against the DMS and compared to the total AET. We identified 114 patients (80 [70.2%] women; median age, 55 years). Using the total AET, 26 (22.8%) were classified as normal and 88 (77.2%) as borderline; however, using the DMS, 45 (39.5%) were classified as normal and 69 (60.5%) as pathological. The new pHoenix score demonstrated strong discriminative ability (AUC: 0.957 [95% CI 0.917, 0.998]) with high sensitivity and specificity (lower threshold, 94.4% and 79.2%; upper threshold, 87 and 95.8%). Compared to the total AET alone, the pHoenix score significantly decreased the proportion of inconclusive cases (77.2% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001). Total AET has low sensitivity to identify pathological reflux as it disregards supine versus upright reflux. The pHoenix score improves the distinction between normal and pathological cases and reduces ambiguity, offering an alternative approach to diagnosing GERD that addresses the limitations of using total AET alone or the DMS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Johnson-DeMeester composite score (DMS) is the historical gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Lyon Consensus outlines criteria for diagnosing GERD by pH monitoring, defining normal acid exposure time (AET) as < 4% and pathological as > 6%, presenting diagnostic uncertainty from 4 to 6%. We aimed to (i) calculate the proportion of borderline studies defined by total AET alone that are reclassified as normal or pathological by the DMS, (ii) determine the importance of supine AET for reclassification, and (iii) propose a new classification system using a composite score that considers positional changes.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed data from patients with an overall total AET from 2 to 6% on 48-h pH monitoring (Bravo pH capsule). Preselected predictors (supine and upright AET) were included in a model to create a composite score (i.e., pHoenix score) using the regression coefficients. The model was internally validated, and discriminative ability was tested against the DMS and compared to the total AET.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 114 patients (80 [70.2%] women; median age, 55 years). Using the total AET, 26 (22.8%) were classified as normal and 88 (77.2%) as borderline; however, using the DMS, 45 (39.5%) were classified as normal and 69 (60.5%) as pathological. The new pHoenix score demonstrated strong discriminative ability (AUC: 0.957 [95% CI 0.917, 0.998]) with high sensitivity and specificity (lower threshold, 94.4% and 79.2%; upper threshold, 87 and 95.8%). Compared to the total AET alone, the pHoenix score significantly decreased the proportion of inconclusive cases (77.2% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Total AET has low sensitivity to identify pathological reflux as it disregards supine versus upright reflux. The pHoenix score improves the distinction between normal and pathological cases and reduces ambiguity, offering an alternative approach to diagnosing GERD that addresses the limitations of using total AET alone or the DMS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39192040
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11105-1
pii: 10.1007/s00464-024-11105-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, Dent J (2014) Update on the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 63:871–880
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269
pubmed: 23853213
Herbella FA, Patti MG (2010) Gastroesophageal reflux disease: from pathophysiology to treatment. World J Gastroenterol 16:3745–3749
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i30.3745
pubmed: 20698035
pmcid: 2921084
Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE (2003) The target of therapies: pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 13:1–17
doi: 10.1016/S1052-5157(02)00103-4
pubmed: 12797424
Tack J, Pandolfino JE (2018) Pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 154:277–288
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.09.047
pubmed: 29037470
De Giorgi F, Palmiero M, Esposito I, Mosca F, Cuomo R (2006) Pathophysiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 26:241–246
pubmed: 17345925
pmcid: 2639970
Kellerman R, Kintanar T (2017) Gastroesophageal reflux disease. Prim Care 44:561–573
doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2017.07.001
pubmed: 29132520
Johnson LF, Demeester TR (1974) Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus: a quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 62:325–332
pubmed: 4432845
Neto RML, Herbella FAM, Schlottmann F, Patti MG (2019) Does DeMeester score still define GERD? Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy118
doi: 10.1093/dote/doy118
pubmed: 30561585
Richter JE, Bradley LA, DeMeester TR, Wu WC (1992) Normal 24-hr ambulatory esophageal pH values. Influence of study center, pH electrode, age, and gender. Dig Dis Sci 37:849–856
doi: 10.1007/BF01300382
pubmed: 1587189
Lawenko RM, Lee YY (2016) Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease using the bravo capsule pH system. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 22:25–30
doi: 10.5056/jnm15151
pubmed: 26717929
pmcid: 4699719
Pandolfino JE, Richter JE, Ours T, Guardino JM, Chapman J, Kahrilas PJ (2003) Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system. Am J Gastroenterol 98:740–749
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07398.x
pubmed: 12738450
Ayazi S, Lipham JC, Portale G, Peyre CG, Streets CG, Leers JM, Demeester SR, Banki F, Chan LS, Hagen JA, Demeester TR (2009) Bravo catheter-free pH monitoring: normal values, concordance, optimal diagnostic thresholds, and accuracy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:60–67
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.08.020
pubmed: 18976965
Gyawali CP, Yadlapati R, Fass R, Katzka D, Pandolfino J, Savarino E, Sifrim D, Spechler S, Zerbib F, Fox MR, Bhatia S, de Bortoli N, Cho YK, Cisternas D, Chen CL, Cock C, Hani A, Remes Troche JM, Xiao Y, Vaezi MF, Roman S (2024) Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0. Gut 73:361–371
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2023-330616
pubmed: 37734911
Lee ME, Ghosh G, Rooney K, Soumekh A, Schnoll-Sussman F, Katz P (2024) Prolonged acid reflux monitoring using acid exposure time and DeMeester score: two days are not enough. Surg Endosc 38:2515
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10733-x
pubmed: 38467859
Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ, Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ, Prakash Gyawali C, Roman S, Babaei A, Mittal RK, Rommel N, Savarino E, Sifrim D, Smout A, Vaezi MF, Zerbib F, Akiyama J, Bhatia S, Bor S, Carlson DA, Chen JW, Cisternas D, Cock C, Coss-Adame E, de Bortoli N, Defilippi C, Fass R, Ghoshal UC, Gonlachanvit S, Hani A, Hebbard GS, Wook Jung K, Katz P, Katzka DA, Khan A, Kohn GP, Lazarescu A, Lengliner J, Mittal SK, Omari T, Park MI, Penagini R, Pohl D, Richter JE, Serra J, Sweis R, Tack J, Tatum RP, Tutuian R, Vela MF, Wong RK, Wu JC, Xiao Y, Pandolfino JE (2021) Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0(©). Neurogastroenterol Motil 33:e14058
doi: 10.1111/nmo.14058
pubmed: 33373111
pmcid: 8034247
Fuchs KH, DeMeester TR, Albertucci M (1987) Specificity and sensitivity of objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgery 102:575–580
pubmed: 3660234
Campos GM, Peters JH, DeMeester TR, Oberg S, Crookes PF, Mason RJ (1999) The pattern of esophageal acid exposure in gastroesophageal reflux disease influences the severity of the disease. Arch Surg 134:882–887
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.134.8.882
pubmed: 10443813
Ouatu-Lascar R, Lin OS, Fitzgerald RC, Triadafilopoulos G (2001) Upright versus supine reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 16:1184–1190
doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02581.x
pubmed: 11903733
Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, Zerbib F, Mion F, Smout A, Vaezi M, Sifrim D, Fox MR, Vela MF, Tutuian R, Tack J, Bredenoord AJ, Pandolfino J, Roman S (2018) Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon consensus. Gut 67:1351–1362
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722
pubmed: 29437910
Roman S, Gyawali CP, Savarino E, Yadlapati R, Zerbib F, Wu J, Vela M, Tutuian R, Tatum R, Sifrim D, Keller J, Fox M, Pandolfino JE, Bredenoord AJ (2017) Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil 29:1–15
doi: 10.1111/nmo.13067
pubmed: 28370768
Dickman R, Green C, Fass SS, Quan SF, Dekel R, Risner-Adler S, Fass R (2007) Relationships between sleep quality and pH monitoring findings in persons with gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Clin Sleep Med 3:505–513
doi: 10.5664/jcsm.26915
pubmed: 17803014
pmcid: 1978337
Frazzoni M, De Micheli E, Savarino V (2003) Different patterns of oesophageal acid exposure distinguish complicated reflux disease from either erosive reflux oesophagitis or non-erosive reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18:1091–1098
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01768.x
pubmed: 14653828
Orr WC, Allen ML, Robinson M (1994) The pattern of nocturnal and diurnal esophageal acid exposure in the pathogenesis of erosive mucosal damage. Am J Gastroenterol 89:509–512
pubmed: 8147351
Padua F, Herbella FAM, Patti MG (2021) Lyon consensus pH monitoring gray zone is more prone to be actual gastroesophageal reflux disease according to the DeMeester score. J Gastrointest Surg 25:2218–2220
doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-05031-z
pubmed: 33948864
Bell R (2023) Topic: esophagus benign-GERD, achalasia, motility abstract ID: 78 defining an “indeterminate” range for the DeMeester pH score equivalent to the 4 to 6% acid exposure time range proposed by the Lyon consensus. Foregut 3:396–398
doi: 10.1177/26345161231195999
Frazzoni L, Frazzoni M, De Bortoli N, Ribolsi M, Tolone S, Russo S, Conigliaro RL, Penagini R, Fuccio L, Zagari RM, Savarino E (2022) Application of Lyon consensus criteria for GORD diagnosis: evaluation of conventional and new impedance-pH parameters. Gut 71:1062–1067
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325531
pubmed: 34376517
Visaggi P, Del Corso G, Gyawali CP, Ghisa M, Baiano Svizzero F, Stefani Donati D, Venturini A, Savarino V, Penagini R, Zeki S, Bellini M, Savarino EV, de Bortoli N (2023) Ambulatory pH-impedance findings confirm that grade B esophagitis provides objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 118:794–801
doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002173
pubmed: 36633477
Wiener GJ, Morgan TM, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO, Sinclair JW, Richter JE (1988) Ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring: reproducibility and variability of pH parameters. Dig Dis Sci 33:1127–1133
doi: 10.1007/BF01535789
pubmed: 3044715